Agenda - 02-15-1994 - VII-A - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

3 existing development both within the area and across the county line in Durham. To address a concern about the specific types of industrial uses permitted, the Economic Development Di, .7tor has provided a listing of the types of uses permitted under each industry group listed in the permitted use table.He has also provided examples of existing industries in the count which fall into each category. This information is provided as an attachment to the abstract. 2. Potential for the Town of Hillsborough to incorporate the Economic Development Districts and undo the County's plans. One means of addressing such concerns is to amend the Cooperative Planning Agreement to include a new land use designation entitled"Economic Development District".Associated with this change would be an amendment to the text of the Agreement to indicate that the I.40 101d N.C.86 district would remain within the jurisdiction of the County. Such an amendment would assure that annexation of th district could not take place without the approval of the County.It would also reduce the administrative/enforcement responsibilities of the Town associated with plan approvals but still provide opportunities for review/comment on specific projects. 3. Desire for minimum lot size and impervious surface (or building coverage) limits comparable to those of RTP. Provided as an attachment is a comparison of the proposed EDD standards with those of Durham's "business park"and"research applications"zoning districts. The"research"district standards are based on similar standards included in the restrictive covenants of RTP. To determine how the "research"district compared with the EDD standards, the 15% building coverage limit was used as a starting point.Applied to an 8-acre lot, a one-story"office"building could be no more than 52,300 sq A in area. Staff determined that a lot of 10.3 acres in size would actually be needed to meet building coverage and setback standards,and still provide sufficient area for the building and required off-street parking. Staff then went through the same exercise for the same building size and determined that in Durham's"business park"district,a lot size of 4.2 acres would be required, even though the minimum lot size requirement was only three acres. The influencing factor in this case was the impervious surface limit of 60%. Staff j�'then applied the EDD standards to the 52,300 sq.ft building and found that for office, retail,distribution, and industrial uses, results similar to those of the Durham "business park" standards were achieved. Staff'also found through further analysis that reductions in lot size resulted in reduced building size but the landscape, building, site, and impervious surface ratios remained the same. The controlling factor was found to be the site volume ratio. Finally, staff varied the site volume ratios to see which ratio would come closest to providing a 60% impervious surface limit. Staff'found that no change was necessary for distribution and industrial uses (from previous analysis) but that retail and office standards needed to be changed to the following: